Decided on February 15,1966

Eastern Tea Estate Private Ltd. Appellant
Municipal Board Of Silchar And Anr. Respondents


G. Mehrotra, C.J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure by the Plaintiff -Petitioner against the appellate order of the Subordinate Judge, Silchar refusing an interim injunction to the Plaintiff. Necessary facts are that the Municipal Board, Silchar issued a notice to the Petitioner under Section 158 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1950 - Assam Act XV of 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') asking him to remove certain encroachments on the allegation that they have been made by the Petitioner on the municipal land. The Petitioner applied to the Sub -divisional Magistrate for appointment of a surveyor and to measure the land as his contention was that there was no encroachment on the municipal land. On the direction of the Additional Deputy Commissioner the survey proceedings and the demarcation of the land were started. Before, however, this could be finalised the Plaintiff brought the present suit on the 3rd October 1962 for declaration of his title over the land and for injunction restraining the Municipal Board from demolishing the constructions which the Board had threatened by issuing the notice under Section 158 and thereafter applying to the Magistrate under Section 159 of the Act for an order of removal of the constructions. Along with the suit the Petitioner prayed for an interim injunction restraining the Municipal Board from demolishing the constructions. An interim injunction was granted but after hearing the parties the Munsiff set aside the interim order of injunction. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge, the order of the Munsiff was affirmed. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
(2.) THE Munsiff held that on the perusal of the original record of the encroachment case he did not find anything done by the Defendants in contravention of any provisions of law laid down by the Assam Municipal Act which can create a very, special circumstance to justify interference by him by way of injunction. Further he remarked that it is a well settled rule that it is not the practice of Courts to interfere with corporate bodies unless they are manifestly abusing their powers. The Munsiff thus rejected the prayer for interim injunction on the ground that there was no justification for an interference by him in the circumstances of the case as proceedings were pending before the Magistrate under Section 159 of the Act and further that unless there is an abuse of power by the Board, the public body's action should not be interfered with. When the matter went up in appeal the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the finding of the Munsiff on the ground that the proceedings before the Magistrate under Section 159 were in the nature of criminal proceedings and in view of the provision of Section 56(e) of the Specific Relief Act no injunction could be granted for stay of criminal proceedings by the civil Court. The decision of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed before me. The Respondents have taken a preliminary point that no revision lies. The appellate Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal and even if the appellate Court had wrongly interpreted any provision of law no revision would lie.
(3.) THE contention of the Petitioner is that if the point of law raised relates to jurisdiction then the Court cannot by wrongly deciding that point assume jurisdiction and thus this Court can under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure examine the correctness of a point which relates to jurisdiction.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.